VA-8 Moran gets unfairly dinged

[Bricker]

So Jim Moran, longtime Democratic Rep from Virginia's 8th district, was caught on videotape, as described by a blogger:

“What [Republicans] do is find candidates, usually stealth candidates, that haven’t been in office, haven’t served or performed in any kind of public service. My opponent is typical, frankly.”

However, Moran’s opponent happens to be Col. Patrick Murray (US Army-Ret.), who served 24 years in uniform, was deployed to four different combat zones, including Baghdad, as part of the 2007 troop surge under Gen. David Petraeus, and was even shot at by foreign combatants. If that isn’t public service, I don’t know what is.

Disclaimer: I wish Moran would lose. I would pay good money to SEE Moran lose. Sometimes, in my internal dialog, I call him "Moron" and then chuckle at my sublime wit.

But c'mon. Here Moran is clearly talking about public office, elected or appointed. Town commissioner, Tree Advisory Committee member, stuff like that. In fact, he obviously knows Murray was in the military, because later in the video he says Murray is hypocritical for having been on the government's payroll and now claiming to want to cut government spending. He used a phrase which is unfortunate, because it allows this kind of brainless crowing about how he doesn't think military service is public service, but there's no substance to that charge. There are 197 good reasons to dump Moran, but this ain't one of them. Cut it out.

[Giles]

Well, it may be clear what Moran meant to say, but "that haven’t been in office, haven’t served or performed in any kind of public service" is not the best way to put it. You'd think that a man who has served 20 years as a Congressman would have a better command of English -- would have learned long ago not to say things can be so easily misinterpreted.

[Mr. Moto]

Originally Posted by Giles

Well, it may be clear what Moran meant to say, but "that haven’t been in office, haven’t served or performed in any kind of public service" is not the best way to put it. You'd think that a man who has served 20 years as a Congressman would have a better command of English -- would have learned long ago not to say things can be so easily misinterpreted.

Jim Moran isn't that kind of guy. We're lucky he just talks these days without thinking, he used to hit first.

[Mr. Excellent]

Originally Posted by Giles

Well, it may be clear what Moran meant to say, but "that haven’t been in office, haven’t served or performed in any kind of public service" is not the best way to put it. You'd think that a man who has served 20 years as a Congressman would have a better command of English -- would have learned long ago not to say things can be so easily misinterpreted.

I agree. I'm a Democrat, but I'm tempted to say that Moran earned the ding here. If you're so inartful that you let yourself say something that can be so easily spun against you, you deserve to take the hit just for being foolish.

Moran could have avoided this just by saying “What [Republicans] do is find candidates, usually stealth candidates, that haven’t held elected office, haven’t served or performed in any kind of electedservice. My opponent is typical, frankly.” And then he could have riffed on how running candidates without experience in elected office gives them the potent advantage of being able to attack the incumbent's record without having to defend their own, but these candidates don't have the skills or experience they need to actually serve once elected.

I'm not saying that this is necessarily the best argument for Moran to make - I've got mixed feelings about it, myself - but there's an easy way to articulate it in such a way that it's clear you have a sensible point, and your opponents can't hide that point in a soundbite.

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by Mr. Excellent

I agree. I'm a Democrat, but I'm tempted to say that Moran earned the ding here. If you're so inartful that you let yourself say something that can be so easily spun against you, you deserve to take the hit just for being foolish.

Moran could have avoided this just by saying “What [Republicans] do is find candidates, usually stealth candidates, that haven’t held elected office, haven’t served or performed in any kind of electedservice. My opponent is typical, frankly.” And then he could have riffed on how running candidates without experience in elected office gives them the potent advantage of being able to attack the incumbent's record without having to defend their own, but these candidates don't have the skills or experience they need to actually serve once elected.

I'm not saying that this is necessarily the best argument for Moran to make - I've got mixed feelings about it, myself - but there's an easy way to articulate it in such a way that it's clear you have a sensible point, and your opponents can't hide that point in a soundbite.

True enough. But what Moran meant was obvious, and dinging him for something he didn't mean is apparently just part and parcel of the elections game. But it's not fair. It elevates form over substance.

[Giles]

Originally Posted by Bricker

True enough. But what Moran meant was obvious, and dinging him for something he didn't mean is apparently just part and parcel of the elections game. But it's not fair. It elevates form over substance.

Bricker, I'm surprised to see you being so casual about accuracy in what people say. Are you going over to the Dark Side?

Moran wasn't just talking in generalities. He specifically talked about his opponent not having performed any kind of public service, and he knew his opponent was a veteran -- who had performed public service for 24 years. If I were a voter in his district, I don't know if it would change my vote, but it is a serious mis-step for an experienced politician.

[Chronos]

While I suppose that, taken literally, the term "public service" could be construed to include the military, I've never heard anyone actually use the term that way. When people say "public service", they always mean elected or appointed civilian officials.

[Giles]

Originally Posted by Chronos

While I suppose that, taken literally, the term "public service" could be construed to include the military, I've never heard anyone actually use the term that way. When people say "public service", they always mean elected or appointed civilian officials.

So, on that criterion, Dwight Eisenhower hadn't performed "public service" before he was elected as President?

[Chronos]

That is correct, and it certainly would have been a valid criticism for his opponent to bring up.

[Merijeek]

Originally Posted by Chronos

That is correct, and it certainly would have been a valid criticism for his opponent to bring up.

Politics has officially passed pathetic, rounded absurd, and is rapidly closing in on pointless.

-Joe

[Acsenray]

After all the goofy stunts that Moran has pulled over the years -- including getting into a fight with a 9-year-old kid in a parking lot -- I'd be shocked if the voters ever punished him for anything he said.

I wish that somebody would beat him in a primary, but so long as he's the Democratic nominee, he's likely to keep getting re-elected.

[Euphonious Polemic]

Originally Posted by Bricker

But c'mon. Here Moran is clearly talking about public office, elected or appointed. Town commissioner, Tree Advisory Committee member, stuff like that. In fact, he obviously knows Murray was in the military, because later in the video he says Murray is hypocritical for having been on the government's payroll and now claiming to want to cut government spending. He used a phrase which is unfortunate, because it allows this kind of brainless crowing about how he doesn't think military service is public service, but there's no substance to that charge.

If Moran wanted to say "elected public service" he should have said that. We have to judge people on what they say, not what we think they meant. We can't just imagine that he used an unfortunate phrase. He said what he said.

[Acsenray]

That's pretty disingenuous. He used a phrase that has multiple meanings and it is obvious from context which meaning was intended. He said what he said.